So I'm doing what I do best (nerding around in my ivory tower avoiding my dissertation at all costs)

Aiyo, what is it that you do study, anyway? I recall you posted a motherfucking paper or some ****, but I can't for the life of me remember what it's about? And you also said you're a therapist. Wait, are you a Jedi?

Regarding that ****, "Physiology of Aikido" sounds intrinsically wonky, like somebody made that **** up.

And while it is cool that motherfuckers are using science to look at martial arts and ****, doing cadaveric studies for Aikido is a waste of Cadavers and time you could spend masturbating. Personally, I want to cut up fighters' and football players' brains after they die as part of my multi centre research for chronic traumatic encephalopathy, but then again, I'm not a fucking Pathologist.

The science in these articles is a start, but it's pretty goddamn soft.

Originally Posted by Goju - joe

being a dick with skill is only marginally better than being a dick without skill.

Aiyo, what is it that you do study, anyway? I recall you posted a motherfucking paper or some ****, but I can't for the life of me remember what it's about? And you also said you're a therapist. Wait, are you a Jedi?

Yea I'm not a physiologist by any means. I study clinical psychology, and my areas of research are 1) bereavement, and 2) integrated healthcare. I couldn't tell you why an Ikkyo pin hurts you, in other words, but I would be happy to talk to you about the pain (both physical and emotional).

From what he was writing, he was examining how the different holds cause pain or damage to a limb, not whether it would work against someone resisting. Basic v. applied science.

How do you tell what causes pain on a corpse?

Seriously though this isn't too far out of the Japanese line of thinking when it comes to MA. Famed last koga ninja, Seiko Fujita, did compile a lot of data on kyusho by testing them on live bodies it was supposed to be the basis of a SF training manual. It is called Kenpo Gokui Atemi Sakkatsuho Meikai I used to have a digital copy of the work but haven't seen it in years.

From what he was writing, he was examining how the different holds cause pain or damage to a limb, not whether it would work against someone resisting. Basic v. applied science.

I understand what he was trying to go for, but really the only thing a test like that would prove is how he can break a corpse. A live person has bloodflow active strength from muscles, resistance and flex from tendons etc.

This sounds like the aikido version of that Medical Implications of Karate Blows book, which has the same annoying problem as the Fight Science/other CG martial arts accelerometer abusers: they feel the need to use metrics and then go "OMG, that's sooo powerful, it could totally kill a guy! Sploosh!". "Wow, that karate chop had as much force as a bowling ball dropped from 8 feet...I'M SO HARD RIGHT NOW!!"

No, the studying was okay it is the application of theories that is incorrect.

Originally Posted by Bneterasedmynam

I understand what he was trying to go for, but really the only thing a test like that would prove is how he can break a corpse. A live person has bloodflow active strength from muscles, resistance and flex from tendons etc.

Do I need to get ALL of the medical studies, on cadavers, that led to the medical advances for the living? Daishi was trying to make a point and it makes sense. The flaw is that, if true, the latter generations didn't always apply the findings to live trainees.

Finding out how things break, sprain, resist and move is a good beginning to a martial art.

Finding out how things break, sprain, resist and move is a good beginning to a martial art.

I agree with this. If it is well-conducted, it should be a good starting point; things like resistance could be grafted onto the existing theory if its solid. It could even be a useful study for those wishing to avoid injuries in class.

No, the studying was okay it is the application of theories that is incorrect.
Do I need to get ALL of the medical studies, on cadavers, that led to the medical advances for the living? Daishi was trying to make a point and it makes sense. The flaw is that, if true, the latter generations didn't always apply the findings to live trainees.

Finding out how things break, sprain, resist and move is a good beginning to a martial art.

Yes, but they will break, sprain, and resist different on a live person. Finding how the body works is a plus, but breaking a stiff doesn't really prove that the same thing would happen on a live person.

Medical studies usually use live test subjects after the corpse tests.